Loading…
Loading…
Pennsylvania · Nonprofit
THE PITTSBURGH PROMISE FOUNDATION (Pennsylvania) is funded by 47 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $24,561,670 in grants to it, the largest being THE PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION ($7,385,782). 30 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
THE PITTSBURGH PROMISE FOUNDATION is better cushioned than half of the 2,564 philanthropy nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,564 philanthropy nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2024
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
49% of THE PITTSBURGH PROMISE FOUNDATION’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (84% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 6 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
$57k from 2 funders in 2025, up from $1.2M and 4 in 2017.
13 of 47 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 35% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of THE PITTSBURGH PROMISE FOUNDATION’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 47 funders by total. Association, not causation.
THE PITTSBURGH PROMISE FOUNDATION leans on a few funders — its largest provides 30% of grant income and the top three 62%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 81% · 2018 76% · 2019 60% · 2020 56% · 2021 49% · 2022 24% · 2023 37% · 2024 52% · 2025 64% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
46% of THE PITTSBURGH PROMISE FOUNDATION's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 64% give in more than one year at all.
Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year.
THE PITTSBURGH PROMISE FOUNDATION is locally rooted: 97% of its grant income comes from Pennsylvania funders.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first. Your 47 funders put you typical among the 400 organizations that share them.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $300k on record.
Federal grants vs contracts are distinguished; state line items keep their reported category. Matched by name + geography (the BMF), so coverage is partial and precision-first.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
87% of spending goes to programs.
Operates in 1 state
Part of a family of 5 related entities
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2018–2024), and the filings of 47funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing